From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #221 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 22 2006 Volume 15 : Number 221 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: reap [Eb ] RE: reap ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [2fs ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [FSThomas ] Re: reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [Capuchin ] RE: reap [Dolph Chaney ] Re: reap [Capuchin ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [2fs ] Re: reap [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] RE: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard [FSThomas Subject: Re: reap You know, I've warned you kids before about trodding on the sacred "reap" thread title for other pursuits. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:53:42 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: reap On 9/22/06, 2fs wrote: >> >> But perhaps I'm being too harsh. After all, he's a man with an ekuhlektik >> reading list - I mean, he's actually read three Shakespeares! >> >> (Too bad the reporter didn't ask him which ones, and for plot >> summaries...) SER: >He didn't mean Shakespeare "plays"... just that he'd read the word >"Shakespear" on three occasions. Yeah, they were all on Shakespeare rods and reels in the Fishing Department at the local Bass Pro Shop. >Geddit, 'cuz, see, he's dumb. He really is! The worse is when he is spitting venom and vitriol from the dais in some of his recent attack speeches. At any moment I expect him to start foaming at the mouth like some Monty Python character. Michael B. NP Ann Hampton Callaway - Blues In The Night ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:56:24 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On 9/22/06, FSThomas wrote: > > Stacked Crooked wrote: > > > what is? the reason the u.s. hasn't tried to rub him out since the > aborted > > coup (or at least hasn't succeeded in doing)? most observers consider > > ahmadinejad to be insane -- is this what's saving *him* from being > rubbed > > out? > > Assassination of a head of state? My my my but you're pushing the > envelope here a bit. Y'know, I've never understood this: apparently, killing thousands of people who aren't responsible in any way for a government's actions or policy is A-OK - but talking about killing the parties actually responsible? Bad! (For the record: I do not endorse assassination either - but the strictures against it, while wars go on along their merry way, strikes me as blatantly feudal in its relativistic reckoning of the value of different human lives.) - -- even though he saw fraud rampant in the election -- accepted the > results because otherwise there may have been "violence." Rather than > raise questions with a fraudulent election he erred on the side of > appeasement; just letting the fraud go un-checked. This reminds me of something...can't quite put my finger on it, though. The country could always have its highest court render a decision, no? (PS: New Robyn Hitchcock album!) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:58:18 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap On 9/22/06, Bachman, Michael wrote: > > > The worse is when he is spitting venom and vitriol from the dais in some > of his recent > attack speeches. At any moment I expect him to start foaming at the mouth > like > some Monty Python character. You know what'd be really funny? Moments before the end of his term, Bush schedules a press conference...at which he tears off what is then revealed to be a rubber mask, and there stands before us...Andy Kaufman, who never died after all! He was just preparing for the greatest performance comedy of his career... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:11:41 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard 2fs wrote: > Y'know, I've never understood this: apparently, killing thousands of people > who aren't responsible in any way for a government's actions or policy is > A-OK - but talking about killing the parties actually responsible? Bad! And if World War II were fought today all of Europe would be speaking with bad German accents inside of two and a half years and imperial Japan would rule the majority of Asia. Not selling life short but we have become so utterly preoccupied with civilian loss of life that we have effectively neutered our military. When a hostile entity (whether it's Iran or Hezbollah or the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade) intentionally masses its infrastructure in and around civilians what are you to do? Do you give guys launching rockets into equally civilian neighborhoods a pass because they're holed up in an orphanage? Do you leave a nuclear/chemical facility alone because its built next to a nunnery? Your answer would probably be something along the lines of using diplomacy and multi-lateral talks for a non-violent solution. In the case of Nazi Germany, that would result in the death of millions of Jews (again) and Iran/Syria/Jordan/Hezbollah the death of millions of Jews (again again). > This reminds me of something...can't quite put my finger on it, though. The > country could always have its highest court render a decision, no? At least the decision was reached by a court. To recommend endorsement of results simply because it's the easiest route to avoiding violence is just silly. > (PS: New Robyn Hitchcock album!) Haven't gotten it yet, but if the list is any measure, the press is good, good, good! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:13:51 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: another Maxell's show - solo ! On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:32 AM, HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > 18 Maxwell's _Hoboken, NJ _ (http://www.maxwellsnj.com/) 19 > Maxwell's > b Solo > _Hoboken, NJ _ (http://www.maxwellsnj.com/) > tp://www.robynhitchcock.com/auditori.htm) Merely a week away from the 20th anniversary of the Egyptians much ballyhooed 3-night stint there! wow, we're fucking old... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:15:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: reap 2fs wrote: > You know what'd be really funny? > > Moments before the end of his term, Bush schedules a > press conference...at which he tears off what is > then revealed to be a rubber mask, and there > stands before us...Andy Kaufman, who never died > after all! He was just preparing for the greatest > performance comedy of his career... You know what would be funnier? the billions of little pieces he would then be manually torn into by the angry mob causing him nowhere near the ammount of agony he's deserve. . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, 2fs wrote: > > Assassination of a head of state? My my my but you're pushing the > > envelope here a bit. > > Y'know, I've never understood this: apparently, killing thousands of people > who aren't responsible in any way for a government's actions or policy is > A-OK - but talking about killing the parties actually responsible? Bad! Who says the former is A-OK? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:21:15 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: reap On 9/22/06, 2fs wrote: > > > Moments before the end of his term, Bush schedules a press conference...at > which he tears off what is then revealed to be a rubber mask, and there > stands before us...Andy Kaufman, who never died after all! He was just > preparing for the greatest performance comedy of his career... Well, it'd only really be funny if all the, like, people dying turned out to be phony as well. But alas, I fear... Seriously, it is true! New Robyn Hitchcock album! Try it. I guarantee you wiil find it to be the Best Album by Robyn Hitchcock & the Venus 3 EVAR. - -SER - -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:38:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > Who's going to win the popularity contest: the guy who will pay you $100 > if you work for the money, or the one who will give you $20 for doing > fuck-all nothing? > > The vast majority (and this goes outside of just the US culture), when > given the choice of (relatively) boundless returns through effort or > subsistence through inaction will opt for the latter. Yes, because the first one is slavery and the second one is freedom. When someone says you can only stay alive if you do their bidding, that's slavery. People don't like that. When someone says, I will help you survive and you can direct your productive energies however you like, that is liberty. People love that. > Well we are Venezuela's largest oil customer. If you were in business > you might consider speaking nicely to your biggest client, but when > you're the sole provider of a niche product you can pretty much bend > them over and roger then all night long and they'll still pay you > because, well, you have to. Yeah, that's pretty much Capitalism. Funny thing is, Chavez only uses it against Capitalists and has more enlightened and humane ways of dealing with people who are not. >> the fact of "social programmes" for the rich utterly dwarfing those for >> the poor > > Example? Social Security? Or do you consider 401ks "social programmes > for the rich"? Um, the entire military program? If that's not a subsidy for the rich, I don't know what is. The thing essentially exists in order to protect "US interests" (the interests of US corporations) abroad. After all, the economy requires protection from all those people that would prefer freedom. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:50:17 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: reap On 9/22/06, Bachman, Michael wrote: >> >> >> The worse is when he is spitting venom and vitriol from the dais in some >> of his recent >> attack speeches. At any moment I expect him to start foaming at the mouth >> like >> some Monty Python character. Jeff came back with this one: >You know what'd be really funny? >Moments before the end of his term, Bush schedules a press conference...at >which he tears off what is then revealed to be a rubber mask, and there >stands before us...Andy Kaufman, who never died after all! He was just >preparing for the greatest performance comedy of his career... Chuckle, guffaw, belly laugh. Have you noticed that Chaney looks like Darth Vader without his helmet at the end of Return of the Jedi? Maybe Chaney shot himself down at the farm in Texas (ala the Monty Python 127th Annual Twit of the Year Contest) and David Prowse has been Chaney ever since. It might explain the time gap as well. Michael B. NP The Ocean Blue - Cerulean ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:12:27 -0500 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: RE: reap At 03:50 PM 9/22/2006, Bachman, Michael wrote: >Have you noticed that Chaney looks like Darth >Vader without his helmet at the end of Return of the Jedi? Maybe Chaney shot >himself down at the farm in Texas (ala the Monty Python 127th Annual Twit >of the Year >Contest) and David Prowse has been Chaney ever since. It might explain the >time gap >as well. Ahem. That's CHENEY, please. Love, Chaney ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:20:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: reap On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > Seriously, it is true! New Robyn Hitchcock album! Try it. I guarantee > you wiil find it to be the Best Album by Robyn Hitchcock & the Venus 3 > EVAR. I ordered it last night! I finally had to accept that it can't be all that bad. Still don't think I'm going to be getting Luxor anytime soon, though. Damn you all. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:34:06 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On 9/22/06, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, 2fs wrote: > > > > Assassination of a head of state? My my my but you're pushing the > > > envelope here a bit. > > > > Y'know, I've never understood this: apparently, killing thousands of > people > > who aren't responsible in any way for a government's actions or policy > is > > A-OK - but talking about killing the parties actually responsible? Bad! > > Who says the former is A-OK? By their actions, pretty much every government on the face of earth. By their (frequent) approval, much of the population of many nations on earth. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:49:23 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard Capuchin wrote: >> The vast majority (and this goes outside of just the US culture), when >> given the choice of (relatively) boundless returns through effort or >> subsistence through inaction will opt for the latter. > > Yes, because the first one is slavery and the second one is freedom. Riiight. > When someone says you can only stay alive if you do their bidding, > that's slavery. People don't like that. > > When someone says, I will help you survive and you can direct your > productive energies however you like, that is liberty. People love that. Dismissing self-sufficiency and breeding of a lifelong reliance upon the state is an even worse sort slavery. Zapata said something along the lines of "It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees." When you rely on the State for your survival -- when you are not capable either by law or will to support yourself and work to better your condition -- isn't that the very definition of slavery? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:54:35 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On 9/22/06, FSThomas wrote: > > > And if World War II were fought today all of Europe would be speaking > with bad German accents inside of two and a half years and imperial > Japan would rule the majority of Asia. Can I evoke whatever variant of Godwin's Law it is that relates to using WWII as an analogy? Because, you see, this world is not that world. But as long as you bring it up: most historians agree that one cause of WWII was the excessively harsh, and humiliating, conditions attached to the Treaty of Versailles. Insisting on the utter defeat of your enemies generally comes back to bite you in the ass. So yes, by all means: bomb hell out of Iraq, and surely the next generation of Iraqis will be our new best buddies. Resentment? Internal strife at "backstabbers," and the growth of parties finding someone to scapegoat? That'd never happen again, would it. (No, I am not saying WWII was the Allies' fault.) Not selling life short but we have become so utterly preoccupied with > civilian loss of life that we have effectively neutered our military. So what would work better? Is the problem in the Middle East that there aren't enough dead people yet? Perhaps (to borrow two lines from Joni Mitchell) we should get back to the Garden, bomb it flat, and put up a parking lot. In fact, we could just kill everyone...and peace would reign. Slightly more seriously: If you're going to bring up WWII, and claim that "today" we would have lost it because of our unwillingess to sacrifice civilian life (despite, of course, Bush's repeated and notable appeals to sacrifice, such as gas rationing, enforced energy saving, massive tax increases to pay for the costs of battle, and the tragic loss of both his daughters' lives as they patriotically enlisted in the Marines to fight for their homeland, after the horrifying attacks by Iraq on San Francisco, Atlanta, and Disneyland), you'll need to explain what more we should be doing in Iraq (and, uh, that other country...the one where that Osama bin Whatshisname was hiding out...why did we want to catch him again? I forget...) and why that would work. Because it simply doesn't seem to be the case that Iraqis think we're "liberating" them. Will their minds change if we'd unleashed *more* force, killed *more* Iraqis? I'm sure that'd work here: imagine the Canadians took over the US after the 2000 elections (on the grounds that a tyrannical, unelected leader had taken over the nation, and we Americans had unaccountably not yet risen up against him): you'd think that was great, right, since they were only trying to bring us democracy, right, and you wouldn't worry overmuch about the mass of your fellow citizens who felt that your collaborating with the Canadian aggressors was treason - the Canucks are on *our* side. Surely, sensible Americans would kowtow to a foreign power who promised to bring us "democracy," right? And the more Americans that power killed, the likelier we'd be to agree with them, right? When a hostile entity (whether it's Iran or Hezbollah or the Al-Aqsa > Martyr's Brigade) intentionally masses its infrastructure in and around > civilians what are you to do? Do you give guys launching rockets into > equally civilian neighborhoods a pass because they're holed up in an > orphanage? Do you leave a nuclear/chemical facility alone because its > built next to a nunnery? What the fuck are we doing there in the first place, ought to be the question. We can't solve their problems for them; the preponderance of evidence suggests our presence is only making things worse. The United States is not Jesus. We see a barfight break out between two assholes; we somehow think we can walk into the middle of it with our big holy muscles and guns, and everyone will magically thank us for it. What happens in barfights when more people join in? It gets worse. Not better. Your answer would probably be something along the lines of I seem to recall observing that you're not me - so you don't know what I think until I write it. I'm not telling you what you're going to say or think; please return the favor. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:57:31 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On 9/22/06, 2fs wrote: > > > Can I evoke whatever variant of Godwin's Law it is that relates to using > WWII as an analogy? Since Gene Clark and the Byrds have come up a few times lately, it's kind of interesting that I was trying to remember what the hell song "Underground Sun" reminded me of, and I just pegged it: it's "The Day Walk", the last lost song that Gene ever cut with the original Byrds, which remained unreleased until it was unearthed for the "Never Before" compilation, at which time Gene had forgotten its original title and renamed it "Never Before", hence the compilation's title. Subsequently in a chronological order that I forget, the Byrds box set came and went, Gene died, someone figured out that it was supposed to have been callled "The Day Walk", it ended up titled "The Day Walk (Never Before)" as a bonus track on the reissue of (I think) "Younger Than Yesterday", Robyn recorded this song that I think sounds like it, and just now I have decided that as such it also sounds a little like Tom Petty; I'm fairly certain those last two events are the most recent depending on at which end of the chronological spectrum you're starting (resists temptation to retype entire post backwards). Technically I should have changed the subject line, but... heh, "peenis". - -RES, gearing up for the gig tonight ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:57:56 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard - -- FSThomas is rumored to have mumbled on 22. September 2006 15:16:35 -0400 regarding Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard: > The vast majority (and this goes outside of just the US culture), when > given the choice of (relatively) boundless returns through effort or > subsistence through inaction will opt for the latter. If that's true, why not do so?? - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:05:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > Dismissing self-sufficiency and breeding of a lifelong reliance upon the > state is an even worse sort slavery. Working for a wage is not self-reliance. It's lifelong reliance on an employer. > Zapata said something along the lines of "It is better to die on your > feet, than live on your knees." When you rely on the State for your > survival -- when you are not capable either by law or will to support > yourself and work to better your condition -- isn't that the very > definition of slavery? Who said anything about being forbidden by law from supporting yourself or working to better your condition? The existence of a structure that ensures your sustenance does not prohibit work. In fact, it allows you the freedom to pursue any kind of work you choose to suit whatever definition of better your situation and that of those around you might come to mind. In a system of wage slavery, you spend all of your time doing what the rich institutions (usually state subsidized) tell you to do. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:38:25 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: reap Tom Clark wrote: > > The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the > > stone age" > > after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with > > America's war on Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday. > > "Back" to the stone age? Puhleeze. I think they meant Paleolithic instead of Neolithic, which is where Pakistan pretty much is. When I went through there in 1988, I was shocked whenever I found running water that wasn't already in a river. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:53:34 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: reap >grutness@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > > > It's also of note that the > > removal of Thaksin will probably mollify any fears of a Muslim rebellion > > in Thailand, since much of the disaffection with his rule was due to his > > mishandling of the religious conflicts in the south of the country. > >So instead of quelling/suppressing/negotiating an end to a rebellion in >the making it's better to just thrust the rebels into power with the >police power of the police/military? That doesn't quite make sense; >furthermore so with the bad rap fundamentalist Islam is (should be) >getting these days. Thaksin refused point blank to negotiate with the rebels - against the advice of his top general. You know - the one that's now running the government? The rebels are in no way connected with the army. And who said anything about the army being run by fundamentalist Islam? Just because their leader is a moslem doesn't make them the Taliban. That's like saying that - since they're both Christians - Desmond Tutu and Jerry Falwell must have similar views. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:53:47 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard Jeme wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, FSThomas wrote: > > Dismissing self-sufficiency and breeding of a lifelong reliance upon the > > state is an even worse sort slavery. > > Working for a wage is not self-reliance. It's lifelong reliance on an > employer. That's idiotic. The other option is working for in-kind payments, which means you have to barter for everything instead of being able to easily convert your wage into what you need as a universal form of exchange. I think you mean that if you work for a wage in capitalism you're forever doomed to always have to work for a wage instead of having the freedom to, you know, start your own company or something. Because that, of course, is impossible or something. > > Zapata said something along the lines of "It is better to die on your > > feet, than live on your knees." When you rely on the State for your > > survival -- when you are not capable either by law or will to support > > yourself and work to better your condition -- isn't that the very > > definition of slavery? > > Who said anything about being forbidden by law from supporting yourself or > working to better your condition? > > The existence of a structure that ensures your sustenance does not > prohibit work. In fact, it allows you the freedom to pursue any kind of > work you choose to suit whatever definition of better your situation and > that of those around you might come to mind. Until everyone chooses to work in non-productive capacities, in which case everyone starves. The other option, of course, is to force people to actually produce in a specific way that is productive enough to produce sustenance for the community. Either way, it's not really any different from a wage-based system except jobs that produce better in a wage-based system tend to pay more, and thus the unhappiness that one feels by not being able to pursue "any kind of work they choose" is balanced out by compensation, whereas in your system it gets balanced out by nothing. > > In a system of wage slavery, you spend all of your time doing what the > rich institutions (usually state subsidized) tell you to do. No, you spend all of your time doing exactly what you want to do based on your utility between working and wage. The only thing that makes you do that which you don't want to do is usually something outside the wage system, like the government. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:00:49 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: reap Capuchin wrote: > > Still don't think I'm going to be getting Luxor anytime soon, though. Your loss; it's great. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:14:18 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > -- FSThomas is rumored to have mumbled on 22. > September 2006 15:16:35 -0400 regarding Re: My name is "Eb", and my > peenis is always hard: > >> The vast majority (and this goes outside of just the US culture), when >> given the choice of (relatively) boundless returns through effort or >> subsistence through inaction will opt for the latter. > > If that's true, why not do so?? When you have a system that makes it easy to receive a benefit simply by having a heartbeat as opposed to actually contributing for compensation people will, it seems, often opt to take the benefit. Two examples that I've experienced first-hand? The early 90s era (the time of my exposure; the system may have been reformed) abuse of the dole in Great Britain and union workforces. If there's a system to be abused for gain -- especially where no real action is required on the part of the participant -- a sub-sect of society seems to routinely jump on it. I've worked both for a union and with union employees and keener minds at finding and abusing loopholes for both gain and decreased workload you won't find. You can also consider abuse of the welfare system here in the states if you like. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:26:48 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and my peenis is always hard 2fs wrote: > I seem to recall observing that you're not me - so you don't know what I > think until I write it. > > I'm not telling you what you're going to say or think; please return the > favor. Is that a dodge? Let me re-phrase. "You're the freely elected leader of the US. You are faced with two situations that were, admittedly, not of your doing. How would you solve either of the following?: 1.) There has been a violent attack by enemy combatants (lifting the definition from the GC whereby they are not uniformed military of any state; a militia organization, for example). You know where there training camps/leaders/base of operations is. 2.) A foreign nation in a volatile region is actively developing a nuclear program which is for the development of nuclear weapons. This nation's leader has on more than one occasion defined his position that a neighboring nation should be driven to the sea. You know his nuclear program is for weapons because when offered non-weapons-grade materials in exchange for halting their program they refuse, when asked to allow multi-national inspectors to view their sites they refuse, and they are building their facilities in deep underground bunkers, keeping them safe (supposedly) from aerial assault. And a bonus question: 3.) You opt to ignore question 2's country and they develop nuclear weapons and run a wildly successful test on said neighbor's capital city killing approximately 165,000 men, women and children. How (or do) you react beyond ritual tongue-lashings and UN condemnations? /curious if this garners a response. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #221 ********************************